NUMBER 13-20-00007-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN RE PATRICK DIXON

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1

Relator Patrick Dixon, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in 

the above cause on January 6, 2020. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to 

vacate his judgment of conviction and dismiss the underlying indictment in trial court 

cause number 13-CR-2580-C in the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. 

Relator has already challenged this conviction by direct appeal. See Dixon v. State, No. 

13-14-00493-CR, 2014 WL 5314484, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 16, 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions); id. R. 52.8(d) 

(“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief, 

the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”). 
2

2014, no pet.) (mem. op. per curiam, not designated for publication); see also In re Dixon, 

No. 13-19-00248-CR, 2019 WL 2281535, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 

29, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Dixon, No. 

13-19-00227-CR, 2019 WL 2167955, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 17, 

2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We dismiss relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no 

adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel 

is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris, 

491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 

S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet 

both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex 

rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2007). It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to 

mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show 

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, 

the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent 

evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise 

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the 

appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. The relator must furnish an 

appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) 

(specifying the required contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required 

contents for the record). 
3

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the foregoing requirements 

and, moreover, represents a collateral attack on relator’s felony conviction. “Under 

Texas law, the sole method for a collateral attack on a felony conviction is through an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus.” In re Harrison, 187 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding). “Texas courts of appeals only have habeas 

jurisdiction in situations where a relator’s restraint of liberty arises from a violation of an 

order, judgment, or decree previously made by a court or judge in a civil case.” In re 

Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 n.3 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Thus, courts of appeals 

do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 22.221(d); In re Spriggs, 528 S.W.3d 234, 236 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2017, orig. 

proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, 

orig. proceeding). 

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure vests original jurisdiction to grant a writ of 

habeas corpus in a criminal case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district 

courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

art. 11.05; In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356. And, only the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals has jurisdiction to grant relief in final, post-conviction felony proceedings. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 

243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Williams, 584 S.W.3d 500, 500 (Tex. 

App.—Tyler 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Harrison, 187 

S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see also Padieu v. 

Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. 
4

proceeding). Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition 

insofar as it effectively requests habeas corpus relief.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and the limited record provided, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over the relief 

sought. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. 

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

13th day of January, 2020.